International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 6 2023 106
methodologies). In addition, Fiscal Arbitrators court
judgments were directly located by searching with that
name, and the names of identified personalities involved
in marketing and implementing the Fiscal Arbitrators
scheme, such as Lawrence Watts, Carlton Branch,
and Muntaz Rasool. Three additional and somewhat
similar pseudolaw Detaxer schemes were operating
during this period (Netolitzky, 2023a, p. 814): “DeMara
Consulting” (R v Stancer, 2016 BCSC 192), “Dave’s
Tax Reorganization” (R c Cardin, 2021 QCCS 930 R c
Paquin, 2021 QCCS 931), and “Solutions 21” (Bolduc
v The Queen, 2014 TCC 128 Bolduc v The Queen, 2017
TCC 203). Judgments where taxpayers were involved
in DeMara Consulting, Dave’s Tax Reorganization,
and Solutions 21 were excluded from this study.
Also removed from the study population were number
of Fiscal Arbitrators appeals (Di Mauro v The Queen,
2016 TCC 87 McCarthy v The Queen, 2016 TCC 45
McCarthy v The Queen, 2016 TCC 49 McCarthy v The
Queen, 2016 TCC 86 Oberkirsch v The Queen, 2016
TCC 84) conducted by now former lawyer Joel Allan
Sumner. The Di Mauro, McCarthy, and Oberkirsch
proceedings centered on highly unorthodox allegations
by Sumner that taxation and court processes represent
torture that is prohibited as a criminal offence. In effect,
the Sumner litigation did not address Fiscal Arbitrators
issues, nor provided information about the taxpayers
that is relevant to this investigation. Sumner was
disbarred after making death threats against a range
of targets (Law Society of Upper Canada v Sumner,
2017 ONLSTH 194). Sumner subsequently engaged in
abusive “Freedom Convoy” litigation (Sumner v OPS,
2022 ONSC 1651).
In total, 66 Canadian court proceedings were identified
that involved Fiscal Arbitrators taxpayers, and that
resulted in one or more reported court decisions. These
lawsuits form the Decision Dataset.
A broad range of information was extracted, where
possible, from the 66 Decision Dataset matters,
including:
1. identification and demographic data relating
to the Fiscal Arbitrators customer
2. the dates of key events in the appeal
3. the outcome of the Tax Court of Canada
appeal, and potential subsequent litigation
4. income tax years implicated in the appeal
5.the identity of involved Fiscal Arbitrators
promoters
6. amounts of tax avoided
7. how the Fiscal Arbitrators customer was
introduced to and recruited into the Fiscal
Arbitrators scheme
8. how the Fiscal Arbitrators customer
explained the Detaxer pseudolaw scheme, and
his or her understanding of that and
9. the Court’s evaluation of the credibility of the
appellant.
During the process of assembling the Decision Dataset,
over 800 Tax Court of Canada appeals were identified
that were potentially Fiscal Arbitrators matters. The
“Appeals Details” panel of Tax Court of Canada online
docket records sometimes includes a list of “Related
Appeals.” All “Related Appeals” for lawsuits in the
Decision Dataset were compiled, and then their Tax
Court of Canada docket records were reviewed. Where
a docket record has the flag “Fiscal Arbitrator” in the
“Nature” field, that appeal was added to the Docket
Dataset.
507 Fiscal Arbitrators docket records were identified
in this manner, and formed the Docket Dataset. Much
less information was available in these instances, and
so the Docket Dataset records include:
1. the Tax Court of Canada docket number
2. the name of the taxpayer appellant
3. whether the taxpayer was represented by a
lawyer or agent and
4. the outcome or status of the appeal.
The statistical relationship between certain
characteristics was evaluated with the chi-squared (x2)
methodologies). In addition, Fiscal Arbitrators court
judgments were directly located by searching with that
name, and the names of identified personalities involved
in marketing and implementing the Fiscal Arbitrators
scheme, such as Lawrence Watts, Carlton Branch,
and Muntaz Rasool. Three additional and somewhat
similar pseudolaw Detaxer schemes were operating
during this period (Netolitzky, 2023a, p. 814): “DeMara
Consulting” (R v Stancer, 2016 BCSC 192), “Dave’s
Tax Reorganization” (R c Cardin, 2021 QCCS 930 R c
Paquin, 2021 QCCS 931), and “Solutions 21” (Bolduc
v The Queen, 2014 TCC 128 Bolduc v The Queen, 2017
TCC 203). Judgments where taxpayers were involved
in DeMara Consulting, Dave’s Tax Reorganization,
and Solutions 21 were excluded from this study.
Also removed from the study population were number
of Fiscal Arbitrators appeals (Di Mauro v The Queen,
2016 TCC 87 McCarthy v The Queen, 2016 TCC 45
McCarthy v The Queen, 2016 TCC 49 McCarthy v The
Queen, 2016 TCC 86 Oberkirsch v The Queen, 2016
TCC 84) conducted by now former lawyer Joel Allan
Sumner. The Di Mauro, McCarthy, and Oberkirsch
proceedings centered on highly unorthodox allegations
by Sumner that taxation and court processes represent
torture that is prohibited as a criminal offence. In effect,
the Sumner litigation did not address Fiscal Arbitrators
issues, nor provided information about the taxpayers
that is relevant to this investigation. Sumner was
disbarred after making death threats against a range
of targets (Law Society of Upper Canada v Sumner,
2017 ONLSTH 194). Sumner subsequently engaged in
abusive “Freedom Convoy” litigation (Sumner v OPS,
2022 ONSC 1651).
In total, 66 Canadian court proceedings were identified
that involved Fiscal Arbitrators taxpayers, and that
resulted in one or more reported court decisions. These
lawsuits form the Decision Dataset.
A broad range of information was extracted, where
possible, from the 66 Decision Dataset matters,
including:
1. identification and demographic data relating
to the Fiscal Arbitrators customer
2. the dates of key events in the appeal
3. the outcome of the Tax Court of Canada
appeal, and potential subsequent litigation
4. income tax years implicated in the appeal
5.the identity of involved Fiscal Arbitrators
promoters
6. amounts of tax avoided
7. how the Fiscal Arbitrators customer was
introduced to and recruited into the Fiscal
Arbitrators scheme
8. how the Fiscal Arbitrators customer
explained the Detaxer pseudolaw scheme, and
his or her understanding of that and
9. the Court’s evaluation of the credibility of the
appellant.
During the process of assembling the Decision Dataset,
over 800 Tax Court of Canada appeals were identified
that were potentially Fiscal Arbitrators matters. The
“Appeals Details” panel of Tax Court of Canada online
docket records sometimes includes a list of “Related
Appeals.” All “Related Appeals” for lawsuits in the
Decision Dataset were compiled, and then their Tax
Court of Canada docket records were reviewed. Where
a docket record has the flag “Fiscal Arbitrator” in the
“Nature” field, that appeal was added to the Docket
Dataset.
507 Fiscal Arbitrators docket records were identified
in this manner, and formed the Docket Dataset. Much
less information was available in these instances, and
so the Docket Dataset records include:
1. the Tax Court of Canada docket number
2. the name of the taxpayer appellant
3. whether the taxpayer was represented by a
lawyer or agent and
4. the outcome or status of the appeal.
The statistical relationship between certain
characteristics was evaluated with the chi-squared (x2)
